Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 162 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...are made. But it is usually a remote risk. The Court is entitled to expect – especially in a case attracting considerable attention as in this instance – that all media representatives will be as diligent as possible when discharging their responsibility to report fairly and in accordance with the directions of the Court. [38] Accordingly, I accept that it is appropriate for accredited media representatives to be able to attend the taking of any evidence in camera. This step...

2. TB v DF Ltd [2020] NZDT 1370 (9 October 2020) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Sir Elton John’s walking pneumonia. The evidence supports TB’s contention that there were only 14 songs. 16. DF Ltd’s comment about the playlists TB produced are that DF Ltd did not publish them and say “[it] cannot be fairly be held responsible for [the playlists].” They go on further to say that in any event the playlists do not affect their analysis that [Sir Elton John’s] concert met the “minimum standard” of 16 songs. I disagree. I comment as follows: CI030...

3. [2024] NZREADT 17 - YM v REAA (11 June 2024) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...“some credible evidence supporting the allegations made”. [37] Counsel for the Registrar submitted that it is for the Registrar to decide if the complainant has provided sufficient evidence and whether a complaint would justify a disciplinary response. [38] We agree. [39] As submitted by the Registrar, “even if the information before the Registrar could establish unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct, the Registrar is not bound to refer the complaint to a committee. It mus...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 264 Fleet v Ashburton District Council [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...the sum of $9,092.03 constitutes a fair and reasonable additional charge under s 36 of the Act and is required to be paid by the Appellant. B: Costs are reserved. Any application for costs is to be filed within 10 working 2 days and any response within five working days of receipt of any application. REASONS Background [1] This matter concerns additional charges levied by the Respondent under s 36 of the Act in relation to a non-complying activity consent application f...

5. Yandall v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements) [2023] NZACC 104 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...based on ACC reaction to a hire a specialist to decline my injury. In the end of my injury diagram, I can understand that my case was handled in a very careless way. In a low class perspective, my case was never heard by anyone who should be responsible for my injury. My injury was also ignored by the employer that I gave all my strength, my time to look after their patients. In return, of all that love and support was nothing but ignorance. But they didn’t know I sacrific...

6. CC v SN & KM [2023] NZDT 475 (25 August 2023) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...material for the fence. KM and CC later that day advised SN she should pay half the tree stump removal costs now that she was not going to pay for the repairs, which SN refused to do. CC then advised in a letter later that day their view that SN was responsible for the repairs / replacement of the fence. I have regard to the 14 January agreement being subject to further information and advice being sought, and decisions to be made. I find the agreement reached earlier that day was not suff...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 45 FAJ v GEK & HIL [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...company; LJB (who has sworn an affidavit in support of the application) owns the remaining stake in the company. [17] The first respondent entered into an employment agreement which described their role as Head Mechanic. As Head Mechanic they were responsible for the day- to-day onsite management of the company and associated duties. They were given a significant degree of autonomy in terms of how the workshop was run, which included purchasing parts and supplies through the compan...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 220 Very Nice Productions Limited v Ormond [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...in its challenge, it may not be able to comply with any costs award issued against it. Further, the merits of its challenge at this early stage do not appear particularly strong. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that Ms Ormond is responsible for the financial circumstances facing the Company. While the Company has submitted that any order for security for costs may prevent its challenge from being heard, it has failed to provide evidence of its financial position to...

9. EH v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 423 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...the Tribunal with an email dated 29 January 2024 from DD of Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). This email outlines the process that FENZ uses to determine the origin and cause of a fire. This is that the first responding Officer In Charge (OIC) is responsible for determining the origin and cause, and that if they are unsure or cannot come to an origin and cause they have the option to contact a Specialist Fire Investigator from within FENZ to assist with the determination. 9. FENZ’s...

10. [2025] NZIACDT 18 – YI v Liu (27 February 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

    ...agent and the associate facilitated the scam. He operated in a way which prevented the complainant from taking advice direct from him, making it more likely his client would become the victim of immigration fraud. Mr Liu therefore bears some responsibility for the complainant’s predicament. It must be remembered that the agent could not file the visa application himself. He needed Mr Liu and his licensed status to do so. [31] It is to Mr Liu’s credit that he has acknowledged...